Assessment sheet for Baltic Sea region and for seven subdivisions

Baltic Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0.30
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.26
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.12
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.08
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.74
Average PD impact 0.01
Average L1 impact 0.11
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 1.00
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 0.85

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Circalittoral mixed sediment 106.25 13273 5.52 3.16 5.95 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.03
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 51.67 7345 3.76 2.23 4.45 0.09 0.18 0.06 0.04
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 33.81 3097 1.23 0.97 2.76 0.08 0.24 0.06 0.06
Circalittoral sand 32.00 6280 6.31 5.41 16.00 0.50 0.48 0.22 0.08
Infralittoral sand 23.47 3639 3.33 3.08 11.02 0.47 0.57 0.22 0.10
Circalittoral mud 22.67 5706 5.24 4.90 10.86 0.48 0.29 0.19 0.06
Offshore circalittoral mud 21.16 2537 14.80 11.99 34.29 1.62 0.61 0.51 0.22
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 19.52 2981 7.37 6.91 21.03 1.08 0.43 0.27 0.10
Infralittoral mixed sediment 18.35 5254 0.48 0.79 0.86 0.05 0.16 0.03 0.03
Circalittoral coarse sediment 11.43 4406 0.41 0.23 0.50 0.04 0.20 0.03 0.04
Infralittoral coarse sediment 6.74 2275 0.28 0.27 0.51 0.08 0.29 0.05 0.06
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 6.55 3077 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.48 2010 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.01
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 3.38 1214 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02
Offshore circalittoral sand 2.74 777 1.84 1.63 4.89 1.78 0.75 0.52 0.21
Infralittoral mud 1.78 1134 0.30 0.35 0.69 0.39 0.37 0.18 0.05
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.72 536 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.02
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.18 241 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
Unknown 0.08 49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0.00 0.00 105.75 0 3.25 5.09 0.02 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0.05 0.01 41.49 0 9.24 0.40 0.00 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0.00 0.00 39.10 0 2.84 0.57 0.00 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 2142.54 3.61 0.39 NA 2.84 0.08 0.05 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 85.70 1.48 0.37 NA 0.87 0.11 0.08 NA NA NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact 34.44 0.44 0.34 NA 3.55 0.15 0.05 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact 1.38 0.18 0.32 NA 1.09 0.22 0.08 NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact 39.75 0.52 0.02 NA 0.06 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact 1.59 0.22 0.02 NA 0.02 0.01 0.00 NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0.03 86.92 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.03 95.05 92.24 92.76
10 0 0.03 96.15 83.95 86.77
15 0 0.02 96.84 75.04 80.19
20 0 0.02 97.43 68.89 72.99
30 0 0.02 98.34 55.38 58.33
40 0 0.01 98.80 46.60 47.18
60 0 0.01 99.44 26.70 21.33
80 0 0.00 99.84 13.94 10.13
99 0 0.00 100.00 2.88 1.74

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0.06 82.47 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.05 91.85 88.31 89.92
10 0 0.05 93.27 80.05 82.63
15 0 0.04 94.33 69.26 75.25
20 0 0.04 95.03 63.30 70.23
30 0 0.03 96.07 52.14 58.87
40 0 0.03 96.87 41.37 48.05
60 0 0.02 98.27 26.51 28.81
80 0 0.01 99.29 11.21 13.58
99 0 0.00 100.00 1.03 0.81

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0.04 76.46 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.04 89.44 91.55 75.42
10 0 0.03 91.82 86.59 71.06
15 0 0.03 93.38 81.65 66.92
20 0 0.03 94.65 76.41 62.67
30 0 0.02 96.28 67.15 55.00
40 0 0.02 97.51 57.58 47.72
60 0 0.01 98.96 38.16 32.18
80 0 0.00 99.59 20.50 16.74
99 0 0.00 100.00 2.58 2.57

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.01 0.22 52.71 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.19 74.89 93.86 93.66
10 0.01 0.17 79.99 87.80 87.49
15 0.01 0.14 83.61 83.11 82.32
20 0.01 0.13 85.92 77.21 76.26
30 0.01 0.10 89.88 66.99 63.74
40 0.01 0.07 92.68 57.12 53.93
60 0.00 0.04 96.14 38.72 33.75
80 0.00 0.01 98.73 20.27 16.17
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.02 1.78

Bothnian area

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0.01
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.06
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.01
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.01
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.94
Average PD impact 0.00
Average L1 impact 0.01
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 1.00
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 0.99

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Circalittoral mixed sediment 56.01 6693 0.54 0.80 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 28.13 4028 1.56 1.27 0.59 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.02
Circalittoral sand 7.34 2030 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01
Infralittoral mixed sediment 4.85 2081 0.11 0.43 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01
Circalittoral coarse sediment 3.26 2007 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.02
Circalittoral mud 3.22 2103 0.13 0.20 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.02
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.90 1348 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.31 940 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Infralittoral sand 0.84 478 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.52 412 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.48 601 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.03
Infralittoral mud 0.10 278 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.07 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.10
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.01 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 0 0.46 0 0.65 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 0 0.67 0 1.92 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 0 2.68 0 0.85 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA NA 1.45 NA 2.95 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA NA 5.76 NA 1.31 NA NA NA NA NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA NA 0.81 NA 3.34 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA NA 3.22 NA 1.48 NA NA NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA NA 0.02 NA 0.06 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA NA 0.08 NA 0.03 NA NA NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0 95.20 100.00 100.00
5 0 0 97.80 97.93 94.73
10 0 0 98.68 93.60 87.42
15 0 0 99.11 90.79 82.66
20 0 0 99.27 86.20 78.64
30 0 0 99.49 72.53 69.67
40 0 0 99.63 64.92 61.25
60 0 0 99.83 42.15 40.21
80 0 0 99.93 21.44 22.57
99 0 0 100.00 8.37 2.88

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0.01 90.21 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.01 96.11 94.88 94.64
10 0 0.01 97.25 88.87 89.70
15 0 0.01 97.90 81.91 85.02
20 0 0.01 98.26 75.95 81.37
30 0 0.01 98.78 60.05 72.20
40 0 0.01 99.15 51.86 63.87
60 0 0.00 99.55 29.75 43.70
80 0 0.00 99.81 18.91 23.75
99 0 0.00 100.00 3.46 6.07

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0.01 96.66 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.00 98.19 98.01 94.29
10 0 0.00 98.86 95.78 86.88
15 0 0.00 99.21 93.78 81.61
20 0 0.00 99.31 89.32 74.61
30 0 0.00 99.53 83.54 65.72
40 0 0.00 99.66 74.73 58.55
60 0 0.00 99.89 46.55 35.72
80 0 0.00 100.00 23.89 18.69
99 0 0.00 100.00 23.89 18.69

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0.01 96.34 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.01 98.16 95.54 95.36
10 0 0.01 98.40 91.17 91.21
15 0 0.01 98.63 84.70 85.65
20 0 0.01 98.82 78.32 79.25
30 0 0.01 99.12 70.79 70.92
40 0 0.01 99.28 62.34 62.39
60 0 0.00 99.69 44.66 45.32
80 0 0.00 99.92 16.70 17.08
99 0 0.00 100.00 8.78 9.04

Gulf of Finland

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0.00
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.01
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.00
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.00
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.99
Average PD impact 0.00
Average L1 impact 0.00
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 1.00
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 1.00

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.35 1006 0.00 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 4.06 748 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
Offshore circalittoral mud 3.06 374 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral mud 2.96 687 0.01 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.00
Circalittoral sand 0.99 299 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.90 184 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.88 274 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.81 558 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.50 451 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.48 284 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.36 118 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.22 279 0.00 0 0 0 0.03 0 0.01
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.13 71 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.11 211 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral sand 0.09 110 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Unknown 0.08 49 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.06 74 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.05 104 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral mud 0.04 117 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA NA NA NA 11.38 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA NA NA NA 2.28 NA NA NA NA NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA NA NA NA 2.08 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA NA NA NA 0.42 NA NA NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA NA NA NA 1.77 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA NA NA NA 0.35 NA NA NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0 98.98 100.00 100.00
5 0 0 99.09 100.00 100.00
10 0 0 99.17 94.55 94.80
15 0 0 99.17 94.55 94.80
20 0 0 99.19 82.86 82.50
30 0 0 99.37 72.13 71.87
40 0 0 99.37 72.13 71.87
60 0 0 99.82 47.88 46.84
80 0 0 100.00 27.19 26.63
99 0 0 100.00 27.19 26.63

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0 99.9 100 100
5 0 0 100.0 100 100
10 0 0 100.0 100 100
15 0 0 100.0 100 100
20 0 0 100.0 100 100
30 0 0 100.0 100 100
40 0 0 100.0 100 100
60 0 0 100.0 100 100
80 0 0 100.0 100 100
99 0 0 100.0 100 100

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0 100 NA NA
5 NA NA NA NA NA
10 NA NA NA NA NA
15 NA NA NA NA NA
20 NA NA NA NA NA
30 NA NA NA NA NA
40 NA NA NA NA NA
60 NA NA NA NA NA
80 NA NA NA NA NA
99 NA NA NA NA NA

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0 98.22 100.00 100.00
5 0 0 98.78 93.86 93.69
10 0 0 99.15 90.22 90.22
15 0 0 99.15 90.22 90.22
20 0 0 99.53 86.88 87.04
30 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65
40 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65
60 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65
80 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65
99 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65

Gulf of Riga

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 1
Average PD impact 0
Average L1 impact 0
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 1
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 1

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.45 542 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
Circalittoral mud 5.16 506 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.99 294 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral mixed sediment 1.43 217 0.00 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.00
Circalittoral sand 1.30 279 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.84 120 0.05 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.02
Infralittoral sand 0.70 142 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.53 136 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.48 111 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 32 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 16 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral mud 0.01 7 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.01 2 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0.05 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 2142.54 NA 0.01 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 85.70 NA 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact 34.44 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact 1.38 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact 39.75 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact 1.59 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0 99.85 100 100
5 0 0 100.00 100 100
10 0 0 100.00 100 100
15 0 0 100.00 100 100
20 0 0 100.00 100 100
30 0 0 100.00 100 100
40 0 0 100.00 100 100
60 0 0 100.00 100 100
80 0 0 100.00 100 100
99 0 0 100.00 100 100

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0 100 NA NA
5 NA NA NA NA NA
10 NA NA NA NA NA
15 NA NA NA NA NA
20 NA NA NA NA NA
30 NA NA NA NA NA
40 NA NA NA NA NA
60 NA NA NA NA NA
80 NA NA NA NA NA
99 NA NA NA NA NA

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0 100 NA NA
5 NA NA NA NA NA
10 NA NA NA NA NA
15 NA NA NA NA NA
20 NA NA NA NA NA
30 NA NA NA NA NA
40 NA NA NA NA NA
60 NA NA NA NA NA
80 NA NA NA NA NA
99 NA NA NA NA NA

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0 99.43 100 100
5 0 0 100.00 100 100
10 0 0 100.00 100 100
15 0 0 100.00 100 100
20 0 0 100.00 100 100
30 0 0 100.00 100 100
40 0 0 100.00 100 100
60 0 0 100.00 100 100
80 0 0 100.00 100 100
99 0 0 100.00 100 100

Baltic Proper

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0.25
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.25
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.10
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.07
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.75
Average PD impact 0.00
Average L1 impact 0.09
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 1.00
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 0.88

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 31.52 2735 0.95 0.75 2.01 0.06 0.21 0.05 0.05
Circalittoral mixed sediment 28.96 3585 2.32 0.66 1.11 0.04 0.17 0.02 0.03
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 16.26 2086 1.56 0.58 2.83 0.17 0.32 0.13 0.07
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 15.31 2121 3.93 4.02 12.17 0.79 0.33 0.21 0.08
Circalittoral sand 11.76 1880 2.09 1.24 4.14 0.35 0.49 0.17 0.08
Offshore circalittoral mud 8.43 1278 2.76 2.95 8.59 1.02 0.40 0.30 0.11
Circalittoral mud 7.50 1621 1.82 1.37 3.68 0.49 0.34 0.20 0.06
Circalittoral coarse sediment 5.86 1391 0.24 0.06 0.16 0.03 0.22 0.02 0.06
Infralittoral mixed sediment 5.42 1213 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.73 1068 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02
Infralittoral sand 2.28 729 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.06 0.21 0.06 0.04
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.21 756 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 1.95 269 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.36 617 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.70 196 0.43 0.49 1.39 1.98 0.61 0.41 0.16
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.56 416 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.03
Infralittoral mud 0.17 278 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.12 156 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 0.00 35.17 0 1.14 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 0.01 11.78 0 4.44 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 0.00 11.21 0 0.98 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA 6.94 0.33 NA 3.91 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA 2.06 0.32 NA 0.86 NA NA NA NA NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA 1.22 0.32 NA 4.73 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA 0.36 0.30 NA 1.04 NA NA NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA 1.81 0.02 NA 0.08 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA 0.54 0.02 NA 0.02 NA NA NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0.03 79.11 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.03 91.31 90.79 70.27
10 0 0.03 93.07 85.82 66.37
15 0 0.02 94.35 80.61 62.32
20 0 0.02 95.29 75.62 58.70
30 0 0.02 96.51 66.92 51.39
40 0 0.01 97.52 58.48 44.88
60 0 0.01 98.90 38.51 29.83
80 0 0.00 99.62 21.01 16.26
99 0 0.00 100.00 3.38 2.62

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0.02 83.08 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.02 93.46 94.08 94.12
10 0 0.02 95.71 88.83 89.84
15 0 0.02 96.73 84.89 86.52
20 0 0.02 97.39 79.32 80.63
30 0 0.01 98.32 68.55 68.40
40 0 0.01 98.90 57.06 54.81
60 0 0.01 99.41 37.45 33.27
80 0 0.00 99.89 15.51 8.53
99 0 0.00 100.00 6.66 1.67

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0 0.12 68.18 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.11 83.66 92.00 90.03
10 0 0.10 86.53 81.92 79.01
15 0 0.09 88.38 76.69 74.42
20 0 0.08 89.51 70.60 67.82
30 0 0.07 91.56 59.71 56.07
40 0 0.06 93.24 52.09 49.43
60 0 0.04 96.08 33.75 31.70
80 0 0.02 98.33 19.49 21.80
99 0 0.00 100.00 0.84 0.64

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.01 0.20 66.75 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.18 81.66 94.47 91.82
10 0.01 0.15 84.24 89.20 86.57
15 0.01 0.14 85.94 84.49 81.80
20 0.01 0.12 87.72 79.09 76.53
30 0.01 0.10 90.16 68.76 66.42
40 0.01 0.08 92.33 59.23 57.08
60 0.01 0.05 95.57 39.19 37.99
80 0.00 0.02 98.15 19.41 18.88
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.38 1.28

Arkona & Bornholm Basin

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 1.09
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.78
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.41
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.31
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.22
Average PD impact 0.02
Average L1 impact 0.40
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 0.99
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 0.46

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Infralittoral sand 11.86 1190 1.98 1.41 6.72 0.57 0.74 0.30 0.19
Circalittoral mixed sediment 10.03 1143 2.50 1.50 4.24 0.42 0.59 0.22 0.18
Offshore circalittoral mud 9.44 810 11.87 8.83 25.07 2.66 1.00 0.86 0.49
Circalittoral sand 8.57 1242 2.91 2.48 8.83 1.03 0.90 0.47 0.23
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 3.20 484 3.44 2.87 8.82 2.75 1.00 0.63 0.28
Infralittoral mixed sediment 2.95 621 0.15 0.08 0.18 0.06 0.42 0.06 0.12
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.69 627 0.12 0.08 0.23 0.09 0.46 0.07 0.12
Circalittoral mud 1.99 479 1.46 1.23 3.27 1.64 0.98 0.67 0.32
Offshore circalittoral sand 1.47 314 1.31 1.01 3.22 2.20 0.98 0.71 0.38
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 1.38 167 0.28 0.22 0.75 0.55 1.00 0.26 0.36
Circalittoral coarse sediment 1.30 519 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.16 0.60 0.11 0.11
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.23 189 0.65 0.38 1.03 0.84 0.92 0.50 0.33
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.49 147 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.58 0.07 0.09
Infralittoral mud 0.24 93 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.69 0.71 0.40 0.17
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 66 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.42 0.84 0.37 0.08
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.02 30 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.58 0.97 0.41 0.30
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 1.00 0.22 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 0.00 59.14 0 1.40 2.26 0.02 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 0.00 24.07 0 2.60 0.14 0.00 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 0.00 19.09 0 0.92 0.21 0.00 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA 0.79 0.41 NA 1.86 0.06 0.05 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA 0.78 0.32 NA 0.66 0.09 0.08 NA NA NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA 0.12 0.35 NA 2.70 0.13 0.05 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA 0.12 0.28 NA 0.96 0.18 0.08 NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA 0.16 0.02 NA 0.03 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA 0.16 0.02 NA 0.01 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.01 0.29 25.90 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.25 61.00 87.30 86.81
10 0.01 0.22 69.99 80.10 80.49
15 0.01 0.19 76.53 72.95 73.58
20 0.01 0.16 81.08 66.89 68.61
30 0.01 0.12 86.25 53.86 53.08
40 0.01 0.09 90.04 43.37 42.05
60 0.00 0.05 95.19 25.40 24.39
80 0.00 0.02 98.32 12.04 12.72
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.05 2.99

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.01 0.22 41.24 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.20 70.10 94.63 95.06
10 0.01 0.18 75.56 88.80 88.98
15 0.01 0.16 80.44 82.23 81.65
20 0.01 0.14 84.53 76.26 75.42
30 0.01 0.10 89.37 64.74 62.01
40 0.00 0.08 92.26 56.12 53.85
60 0.00 0.04 96.50 35.57 30.17
80 0.00 0.01 99.10 18.40 13.01
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 5.63 3.69

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.05 0.79 0.02 100.00 100.00
5 0.05 0.68 23.85 94.68 94.69
10 0.05 0.59 35.56 88.68 89.06
15 0.04 0.51 45.16 82.67 83.97
20 0.04 0.45 52.00 76.70 78.61
30 0.04 0.35 62.95 65.55 68.52
40 0.03 0.27 71.32 55.73 59.37
60 0.02 0.15 83.66 37.12 39.40
80 0.01 0.06 93.37 18.47 18.70
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.91 0.77

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.02 0.49 10.16 100.00 100.00
5 0.02 0.43 48.23 94.19 93.87
10 0.02 0.37 58.04 89.06 88.90
15 0.02 0.32 64.82 83.75 83.79
20 0.02 0.28 69.80 77.70 78.39
30 0.01 0.22 77.59 67.34 68.14
40 0.01 0.16 83.57 54.92 56.87
60 0.01 0.10 90.36 35.89 36.94
80 0.00 0.04 96.05 17.04 17.21
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.12 0.71

Western Baltic Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0.72
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.57
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.27
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.20
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.43
Average PD impact 0.02
Average L1 impact 0.28
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 0.99
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 0.63

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Infralittoral sand 7.70 990 1.28 1.56 4.14 0.54 0.53 0.20 0.13
Infralittoral mixed sediment 3.18 669 0.21 0.28 0.60 0.19 0.45 0.10 0.12
Circalittoral sand 2.03 550 1.26 1.50 2.99 1.47 0.74 0.48 0.17
Circalittoral mud 1.84 310 1.82 2.09 3.85 2.09 0.90 0.72 0.25
Infralittoral mud 1.22 361 0.27 0.33 0.52 0.43 0.40 0.18 0.12
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.74 240 0.13 0.16 0.26 0.36 0.68 0.20 0.22
Circalittoral mixed sediment 0.45 304 0.14 0.19 0.35 0.79 0.80 0.35 0.16
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.22 70 0.17 0.20 0.63 2.83 0.93 0.85 0.19
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.21 144 0.10 0.13 0.28 1.33 0.83 0.49 0.24
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.07 94 0.06 0.07 0.11 1.63 0.76 0.61 0.24
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.05 80 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.73 0.81 0.24 0.16
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.01 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.52 0.22 NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 0.00 10.97 0 0.06 2.82 0.00 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 0.00 4.97 0 0.26 0.25 0.00 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 0.00 6.13 0 0.08 0.36 0.00 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA 0.30 0.45 NA 4.31 0.09 0.03 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NA 1.22 0.56 NA 1.35 0.13 0.05 NA NA NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA 0.02 0.29 NA 2.27 0.17 0.02 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA 0.07 0.36 NA 0.71 0.24 0.03 NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA 0.02 0.02 NA 0.05 0.01 0.00 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA 0.07 0.02 NA 0.02 0.01 0.00 NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.01 0.22 46.97 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.18 76.37 91.26 89.95
10 0.01 0.14 82.48 82.78 81.84
15 0.01 0.12 85.95 74.45 71.94
20 0.01 0.10 88.49 66.21 63.63
30 0.01 0.07 92.06 49.34 46.67
40 0.00 0.05 94.63 37.20 34.30
60 0.00 0.03 97.32 22.01 19.04
80 0.00 0.01 99.53 10.15 8.12
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 5.82 4.49

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.01 0.12 55.22 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.11 82.24 95.37 91.69
10 0.00 0.10 86.45 90.85 86.68
15 0.00 0.08 89.52 85.96 82.01
20 0.00 0.07 91.35 81.56 77.63
30 0.00 0.05 94.32 74.04 69.79
40 0.00 0.04 96.00 64.02 57.71
60 0.00 0.02 98.41 41.91 39.94
80 0.00 0.01 99.54 20.18 19.57
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 8.26 10.79

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.04 0.49 26.41 100.00 100.00
5 0.04 0.40 55.99 94.40 93.43
10 0.03 0.35 62.86 88.91 86.67
15 0.03 0.30 68.33 83.19 80.92
20 0.03 0.26 72.06 78.08 75.80
30 0.03 0.21 78.73 68.25 65.90
40 0.02 0.15 84.47 59.53 56.42
60 0.02 0.08 92.29 41.36 37.22
80 0.01 0.03 97.58 19.30 17.39
99 0.00 0.01 100.00 5.56 3.48

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 0.05 0.74 9.92 100.00 100.00
5 0.05 0.64 34.84 94.44 93.75
10 0.05 0.57 42.97 89.25 88.39
15 0.05 0.49 51.76 83.58 82.70
20 0.04 0.44 56.29 77.96 76.81
30 0.04 0.36 64.90 66.76 65.63
40 0.03 0.28 72.76 56.30 55.13
60 0.02 0.16 85.18 36.14 35.68
80 0.01 0.07 94.23 18.98 19.38
99 0.00 0.01 100.00 3.11 3.52